Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:26:15 11/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2000 at 13:58:49, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 13, 2000 at 11:55:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 12, 2000 at 15:10:43, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 12, 2000 at 13:25:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 12, 2000 at 12:48:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 12, 2000 at 11:05:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 12, 2000 at 10:54:42, Jeff Lischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems if you correctly predict the opponent's move 100% of the time, this >>>>>>>would correspond to doubling your available time (you would be thinking on your >>>>>>>time as well as your opponent's time). If a doubling of speed results in an Elo >>>>>>>improvement of 60-70 points, is this also the maximum benefit for permanent >>>>>>>brain? With diminishing improvements at longer time controls, the benefit might >>>>>>>be even less? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If the above is correct, then what about the case where you correctly ponder >>>>>>>only 60% of the time. This seems like a pretty typical value. Then is the >>>>>>>benefit only about 40 Elo points? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Are there any other approaches to permanent brain that might be more effective? >>>>>>>At first I was wondering about simply searching on your opponent's time like you >>>>>>>do on your turn -- using selective searching to focus on the best moves. But >>>>>>>then I thought of another possibility. What about a different kind of searching? >>>>>>>Maybe search using lots of knowledge during your opponents time trying to >>>>>>>develop a plan? Or maybe do a fast selective search looking for killer tactical >>>>>>>shots? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Humans think differently on their time versus their opponent's time. Maybe >>>>>>>computers would benefit from doing the same? I don't know enough about chess >>>>>>>programming, however, to know how (or even _if_) the results of that "opponent's >>>>>>>time search" could get passed to the "your time search". Would hash tables be >>>>>>>sufficient? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This has been answered before... here is the quick version of the idea: >>>>>> >>>>>>let's take two different pondering algorithms: (1) present idea where we >>>>>>assume that the best move from the last search is searched for the entire >>>>>>time; (2) alternative where the best N moves are searched (less deeply of >>>>>>course). >>>>>> >>>>>>case 1: target search time is 3 minutes. The opponent takes three minutes >>>>>>to make his move. >>>>> >>>>>This assumption is not correct. >>>>>The opponent(espacially in cases that the opponent is human) may use 30 minutes >>>>>for one move and less time for the other moves) >>>>> >>>>>I believe that in this case it is better to stop searching the best move after >>>>>part of this time and start to consider the response for the second best move. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>The same thinking applies. I am _sure_ I am going to predict his move over >>>>50% of the time. If he takes a long time, should I take a long time, or should >>>>I do a bunch of three minute searches on different moves he might choose, and >>>>after _his_ long think I play a move found after a 3 minute think? >>>> >>>>I think the current approach is best for _all_ circumstances... >>> >>>It is not clear. >>> >>>The benefit that you earn from another 3 minutes of search after you search for >>>more time is smaller because of diminishing return from speed and in cases that >>>you did not predict the move correctly in the first try you can earn the first 3 >>>minutes that are more important. >> >>Note that I don't necessarily agree with the concept of "diminishing returns" >>when it comes to search depth. > >It is clear that there is also diminishing return in search depth. > >The average search depth that you get from another minute is lower when you use >more time so if you decide to start analyzing a reply for another move after 9 >minutes of pondering you sacrifice less plies for the same target relative to >the case that you do it after 3 minutes and it is logical to think that at some >point the gain may be bigger than the sacrifice. > >Uri I am not sure what you mean. When I ran the crafty goes deep tests, the search depth was pretty linear. for every factor of 3x or so more time, it went one more ply deeper. I didn't see any "wall" that it ran into. It does help if you run it with a huge hash for huge searches.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.